Subject: [Pce] Please publish draft-ietf-pce-of-05.txt

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 13:19:52 +0100

Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-pce-of-05.txt

 Indtended status : Standards Track

> (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
>        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
>        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
>        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

 Adrian Farrel is the document shepherd.
He has personally reviewed the I-D and believes it is ready for
forwarding to the IESG for publication.

> (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
>        and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
>        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
>        have been performed?

The I-D had a good level of review and discussion when it was first 
introduced. However, the last year has been quiet and the working group last 
call produced no comments.

To be sure that there was support, the working group was asked to provide 
explicit review and approval. A number of participants responded supporting 
publication.

> (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
>        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
>        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
>        AAA, internationalization or XML?

 No concerns.

> (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
>        issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
>        and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
>        or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
>        has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
>        event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
>        that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
>        concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
>        been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
>        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
>        this issue.

 The document is sound.

No IPR disclosures filed.

> (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
>        represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
>        others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
>        agree with it?

See answer to (1.b).

No discontent expressed.

> (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
>        discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
>        separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
>        should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
>        entered into the ID Tracker.)

 No threats. No discontent.

> (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
>        document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
>        http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
>        http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
>        not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
>        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
>        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

 All checks made.

A reference

> (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
>        informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
>        are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
>        state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
>        strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
>        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
>        so, list these downward references to support the Area
>        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

 References split.
No downrefs.

> (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
>        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
>        of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
>        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
>        registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
>        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
>        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
>        procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
>        reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
>        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
>        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
>        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The document requests extensions to the PCEP IANA registerises that are 
still not fully created as PCEP is still in the IESG review process. 
However, the IANA section looks good.

> (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
>        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
>        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
>        an automated checker?

A reference to draft-farrel-rtg-common-bnf is included to scope the BNF 
used.

No tool has been used for verification.

> (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
>        Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
>        Announcement Write-Up.  Recent examples can be found in the
>        "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
>        announcement contains the following sections:
>
>        Technical Summary
>           Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
>           and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
>           an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
>           or introduction.

   The computation of one or a set of Traffic Engineering Label Switched
   Paths (TE LSPs) in MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
   Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks, is subject to a set of one or more
   specific optimization criteria, referred to as objective functions
   (e.g. minimum cost path, widest path, etc.).

   In the Path Computation Element (PCE) architecture, a Path
   Computation Client (PCC) may want a path to be computed for one or
   more TE LSPs according to a specific objective function. Thus, the
   PCC needs to instruct the PCE to use the correct objective function.
   Furthermore, it is possible that not all PCEs support the same set of
   objective functions, therefore it is useful for the PCC to be able to
   automatically discover the set of objective functions supported by
   each PCE.

   This document defines extensions to the PCE communication Protocol
   (PCEP) to allow a PCE to indicate the set of objective functions it
   supports. Extensions are also defined so that a PCC can indicate in
   a path computation request the required objective function, and so
   that a PCE can report in a path computation reply the objective
   function that was used for path computation.

>        Working Group Summary
>           Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
>           example, was there controversy about particular points or
>           were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
>           rough?

Good support and discussion in early stages of the I-D.
Special review and approval commissioned to confirm WG support.

>        Document Quality
>           Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
>           significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
>           implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
>           merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
>           e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
>           conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
>           there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
>           what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
>           review, on what date was the request posted?

 A private survey has revealed several implementations of the PCEP 
extensions defined in this document.

Furthermore, there are several further extensions in the pipeline that make 
use of these extensions to enable new applications of PCE.

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce